Asked and answered, several times.
Your unwillingness or inability to understand is not my problem anymore. Have a good night.
No it’s not. It’s designed to maintain RPM by altering prop pitch angle, no more, no less. Good night.
This is one of the best examples of Dunning-Kruger I think I’ve ever come upon, and that’s saying something.
3 Likes
Fair enough, let‘s get our panties in a twist over confirmation biases. I give you then group think and bandwagon effect. 
Again, I‘m not questioning established procedures.
I am only picking on the partial aspect of the science of propellor efficiency. (for the sake of a hypothetical best way to maintain the engines over their lifetime. It‘s a mental excercise, not a suggestion to change the ‚safety first’ checklists, it requires a small amount of free thinking ‚outside the box‘)
Procedures are also the way they are to ease workload in critical phases of flight and to be ahead of the plane, to have safety margins in place, shall things go south.
But to say it is established fact that the best climb rate with best efficiency is achieved at a normal climb speed of e.g. 110 KIAS and bot engines operating normally as apodictum at full RPM is not a correct statement. It is done because it is the simplest procedure, shall the plane drift to the dangerous low speed and stall range. Not because the propellor has the highest efficiency at full RPM at 110 KIAS.
The pilot smoothly going around at Vref + 20 half a mile from threshold and pushing the RPM only to 2500 vs the pilot doing the same with full RPM, both planes operating normally, will both arrive at the safe altitude at approx the same time, one with less engine wear and less burned fuel than the other. (disclaimer this is a mental excercise, not a suggestion to change real world procedures end of disclaimer)
It is established fact, that the prop efficiency of constant speed props drifts a bit over the speed range of the plane from best efficiency at highest RPM for zero KIAS to a somewhat lower RPM at cruise speeds. And the landing/go around/climb etc. speeds somewhere in between.
Again, I get it that it‘s not smart to suggest a checklist/procedure that would require the pilot to fiddle laboriously on setting a most efficient setting of rpm in critical flight phases. „Full RPM“ does that safely and quickly, even blindly.
(there is also the cognitive bias, that a higher pitched engine in full RPM is more powerful, when in a dangerous situation the instincts of the reptile brain kick in, even when it‘s not necessarily so)
Peace on earth.
No, you must aim for max. power. The key to understanding this is the realization that no engine, not even electric engines, produce constant torque. Torque is produced momentarily at small burst, although that effect is almost not noticable the more cylinders are at work.
An engine can be seen as someone rowing a boat. It is great if you can pull some massive strokes with your paddles (high torque), but that is worthless if you can do it only once every 4 seconds. Someone with smaller paddle-movements will match your acceleration, if he can do his movement much more quickly and often than you (meaning rpm). Power is both effects combined, and therefore the relevant measure.
Take a look at F1 cars to see this effect, which operate at peak power, not peak torque, to gain the best acceleration.
The relevant measure for acceleration in case of aircraft is thrust. Thrust is, simplified, the propeller power divided by your airspeed. However, Propeller Power does not equal engine power!, they differ by the conversion efficiency of the propeller.
You would be correct, if the propeller conversion efficiency at smaller rpm is much higher than at max. rpm at the go-around airspeed, therefore offsetting the increase in engine power from max. rpm. In this case, a lower rpm propeller could produce more thrust by having higher propeller power, even if the engine power is less.
But that is not the case. Take a look at Fig.7 in this paper to see that the propeller efficiency at lower airspeeds is almost equal regardless of pitch angle. This graph is for one specific propeller only, but from my knowledge, almost all GA-props behave very similarly.
Therefore, max. rpm will get you the most thrust by having the most propeller power. As efficiency plays little role at those airspeeds, you need to look at engine power directly, at least as long as the speed is below 130 knots or so.
3 Likes
This thread is getting off topic. If you want to continue participating, please pull conversations back to discussing the C310R.
5 Likes
We are discussing some specifics of the C310R, not off topic.
Yes. Even though it can be argued that for split second reactions avoiding obstacles max. torque might save the day a bit more efficiently - initially and only momentarily - compared to max. power (assuming there are significant RPM related differences between both in a certain scenario in the first place). Climb out then best with max. effective (prop) power, that’s what the data says, yes.
Exactly.
This is the point that seems to upset everyone.
As you can see in the graph, and said yourself, around 100 KIAS - roughly final approach speed range of the C310R - there is practically no efficiency difference between the finer graduations of RPM due to graduated blade angle (15° to 25° respectively). The curves are practically on top of each other.
I’m not saying the prop is more efficient - at those low speeds - at lower than full RPM settings. I’m saying, all things considered, using a somewhat lower RPM will in most cases mean no harm to safety - practically same prop efficiency than full RPM - but it will safe fuel, lower engine stress, and also create less noise. No more, no less.
Isn’t that a bit contradicting to what you just said before? Isn’t the main reason “full RPM” is suggested close to the ground, “for 100 years!!!” 
", that we are already fully configured for the possibility of sudden very low airspeeds in case of an engine problem or a wind shear? Even if with all things operating normal it means no significant climb rate difference and costs more fuel, engine wear and noise? Safety first, sure.
But again, going around half a mile out on final at Vref + 20 for reasons outside of the plane, why burn more fuel, over stress the engine and create more noise than necessary?
No, as has been told to you time and time again, the RPM absolutely matters. The efficiency, which is what you’re arguing, whether you realize it or not, is less relevant at these speeds. That’s the point this person just made. You need power and RPM provides a lot of that.
You’re not directly setting a blade angle when you select fine rpm - you’re telling the governor to let the prop move fast and create more rpm by adjusting the blade angle to balance torque and thrust, thus giving the most torque possible FOR THAT RPM, specifically the highest RPM to the limiter, which is the part of the power formula (torque * rpm) that gives you the go juice. If you can’t acknowledge that then there’s no point.
You don’t even know why you’re wrong because you refuse to listen. You’re latching onto one point that you think makes your case, despite evidence to the contrary, because you don’t understand the full picture. But instead of listening and learning, you’re standing your ground. Strange hill to do that upon.
3 Likes
Yes it will. Since conversion efficiency is constant between rpms at those airspeeds, propeller power and therefore thrust is directly linked to engine power. Increasing rpm from 2300 to 2700, which is a 17% increase, will give you an increase in thrust of 17% (assuming constant torque), which is vital in those situations.
I’m inclined to find out whether or not these effects of efficiency are modeled in the 310R. As you said, you found no difference in testing, even though said linear dependency of thrust from rpm at these speeds should be noticable.
1 Like
That I can absolutely get behind.
1 Like
This has been some interesting reads here of late. Hope everyone is alright and having enjoyable flights!!
-Blackbird Team
8 Likes
Nice diplomacy
To add to the discussion, there are other factors for full fine on takeoff and landing. First, increased drag isn’t a factor because it’s cancelled out at low speed/full power. And the drag resulting from reducing power aids in modulating speed on approach. Second, even though it may not be modeled, a piston engine reacts faster theoretially at full fine than feathered. This is very important for go around scenarios.
Another issue is oil distribution. Feathering the prop requires oil and pressure - taking away from the engine may affect cooling and performance of the engine at a critical moment. Interestingly, this is the opposite for turboprops (i believe). Some POH manuals for turboprops state the rpm is to be reduced. This is for noise abatement, not performance. Many of the king air drivers still go full fine despite this, perhaps a holdover from their piston days.
Some of what I’ve stated may be slightly inaccurate, but I think I’m correct in essence.
4 Likes
It’s not - the discussion itself is getting on to detailed/argumentative discussion over intricacies of flying techniques - with a strong irl element, not specifically about the mod itself. Further discussions along these lines should be taken to a different/new thread, rather than taking place inside the main discussion thread for this addon.
Further posts continuing this discussion will be flagged as off-topic.
5 Likes
Agreed, it’s an interesting discussion but should be in another thread as mostly it’s not specific to the C310R.
4 Likes
Yea so I guess I should reiterate that this plane is fantastic. I do feel like it never looks clean, even after washing needs a Turtle Wax button
2 Likes
Maybe a little too long that Marketpalce is taking to update this plane.
According to the designers this was sent 8 days ago… What will be the real problem?
The Wilga was submitted to the marketplace a month ago and still nothing. So that doesn’t bode well.
Unfortunately it takes time and we are eager for it to be released as well. They are probably backlogged from the holidays and trying to catch up.
-Blackbird Team
2 Likes
6 posts were split to a new topic: 310R Prop Performance Discussion
I had just started reading the post, when you deleted it.
The little that I have managed to read seemed interesting to me.
I’m sorry you deleted it.